“But General Sir Richard Dannatt, the former head of the Army, raised fears over the funding of the 80 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft due to be ordered to fly from the carriers.

He told BBC News: “The big but is what’s going to fly off them – because the Joint Strike Fighter programme is about £10bn, and that’s what really frightens us.“

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11274060

Last I heard RN were not very keen to fit Steam catapults, as Steam is going to be replaced by EMALS type catapults . You could, and can, as the French at least were planning to do, fit an auxillery steam generating plant in a Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carrier and then run conventional steam catapults. However if they go CATOBAR, the RN is likely to prefer an EMALS type system if they can get it. EMALS is due to go into USN service in 2016, so it might still be possible.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/5461255/RAF-chief-predicts-controversial-takeover-of-Royal-Naval-air-power.html

He said it and, presumably, believes it.

And a bit more on EMALS:
Recent tests at NAS Lakehurst, N.J., should have builders of the USS Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78) sleeping more easily. The Navy’s risky bet in the design of the Ford—its reliance on an all-electric replacement for the steam catapult—appears to be paying off.

Problems and delays with the electromagnetic aircraft launch system (Emals) last year were a threat to the carrier, because its design and construction reached a point where reverting to steam would have been difficult and expensive. With Emals in mind, the Ford-class features a much more powerful electrical generation and distribution system than the predecessor Nimitz-class ships, along with the virtual elimination of steam-energized services such as heating, galleys and pumps and 10 km. (6 mi.) of steam lines.

The Navy has delayed delivery of the $11.5-billion carrier for budgetary reasons twice. (Commissioning is expected in September 2015.) The scheduled progress of Emals now matches the carrier’s build schedule but with so little slack in some areas that the Navy is continuing to monitor development of the system closely.

The land-based prototype of Emals at Lakehurst started high-speed “no load” test runs in April, and will start to accelerate with dead loads—ballast—at speeds increasing from 50-180 kt. At prime contractor General Atomics’ plant in Tupelo, Miss., prototypes of the Kato Engineering power modules are undergoing accelerated life testing, performing 6,800 power cycles. So far, tests show no signs that the powerful electrical surges cause electromagnetic interference with aircraft, ammunition or ejection seats. The first aircraft launch at Lakehurst is expected by year-end.

Initial Emals components for Ford are due at the Newport News shipyard in May 2011. The tightest schedule concerns the 12 power units, which are high-speed motor-generators weighing 80,000 lb. each and functioning as flywheel energy storage and release units. Some are not due at the yard until the day before they are installed.

Emals will deliver energy more flexibly than Nimitz-class steam catapults. The F-35C Joint Strike Fighter demands more launch energy than the F/A-18E/F, and Emals will allow the Ford to launch the JSF at maximum weight with less wind-over-deck.

Emals can also be set to lower energy levels than a steam catapult, allowing it to launch small, lightly loaded aircraft like unmanned aerial vehicles.

The Ford class features a new advanced arrester gear as well, also produced by General Atomics and replacing hydraulic rams with a water turbine and induction motor, permitting a finer setting of arresting force and reducing the need for manual adjustments between landings. Like Emals, it is expected to allow the carrier to operate heavier and lighter aircraft than the current Mk. 7 arrester gear. Unlike Emals, it is intended to be backfitted to Nimitz-class carriers.

The carrier will be part of the process of introducing a landing guidance system to the Navy: the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (Jpals). It will be one of the first ships with Jpals, which is slated to be on all carriers and large amphibious transports by 2018. The second Ford-class ship, CVN-79, is due to be the first carrier without SPN-41 and SPN-46 radars, which provide carriers with an automatic landing capability.

Adoption of Jpals is urgent for the Navy because current radars will not be supportable after the early 2020s. Jpals is also associated with the F-35C, because the fighter’s reduced radar cross-section means that current radar-based autolanding systems cannot acquire it. The installation of Jpals on carriers will match service entry of the F-35C.

The first increment of Jpals will be qualified for flight guidance down to 200 ft. and 0.5-mi. visibility. Accuracy is intended to be sufficient for an automatic landing, and that capability is being demonstrated as part of the Northrop Grumman X-47B Navy Unmanned Combat Air System program.

The key to its accuracy is shipboard-relative GPS, which uses two GPS receivers—one forward of the island on the starboard side and the other on the portside stern. The space between the sensors and their relative location allows the system to measure the position of the ship accurately and track its movement—speed, pitch, roll and heave—with the aid of three Northrop Grumman LN-270 inertial reference units. Using the same differential GPS technique, Jpals also provides an accurate aircraft position. A data link allows the system to transmit automatic landing guidance.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=dti&id=news/dti/2010/06/01/DT_06_01_2010_p42-228803.xml

“However, as recently as March plans were announced for the F-35 programme to be moved from a ‘cost plus’ to a fixed-price basis. US Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Ashton Carter, told the US Congress that the average per-unit cost of the F-35 had substantially increased from USD50 million to as much as USD95 million in 2002 dollars.

Recent pricing data for the F-35’s international customers also appears to put the F-35 per-unit cost much higher. In Canada, for example, official documents have suggested that the acquisition costs for the 65 F-35As Ottawa expects to buy will total about USD8.7 billion, giving a unit price of USD134 million.”
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/air/jdw/jdw100723_1_n.shtml

IMO there is no such thing as an affordable Fixed Wing Air Group on the table, the upfront costs of CATOBAR are quite high and require investing in high risk technology (it has certainly been de-risked less than F-35B) and the F-35B simply transfers those costs to the airframe. I think the F-35B will be cheaper than you do but that does not take away from the fact that in the numbers being discussed (50ish planes) the costs of 50 F/A-18’s + EMALS will likely cost the same or more than 50 F-35B once you factor in the large percentage of the plane is being built in the UK and the return to the Treasury due to this. The only way IMO that F/A-18 looks cheaper is if the MoD where buying significantly more aircraft.

I have a terrible feeling that we are going to see the end of the CVF’s because there is no cheap option. The only good thing about this appears to be the suggestion that the MoD will find alternative work for the yards to avoid the penalty clauses – so there should be 2 – 3 billion worth of new orders to replace the CVF’s – which for example might be enough to build half a dozen frigates.

The US EMALS Programme is now going very well, as has the UK ERMCAT demonstator. I don’t believe that going CATOBAR presents any large scale risk. If they were to cancel the Carriers it will actually save next to no money, due to contract clauses, etc. Don’t count on anything much in the way of new RN ships to ‘replace’ the Carriers. Affordable fixed wing air group is the only real answer and, plainly that is not F35B.

If CVA had been built there wouldn’t have been a Falklands War. There wouldn’t have been a weakness to exploit and it wouldn’t have been worth the Argie’s while. Civilians don’t understand it, but the more you seek peace, the more you get war.

Agreed.

The Times from tomorrows edition:

“The Ministry of Defence may abandon plans to build new aircraft carriers as part of sweeping budget cuts and a long-awaited defence review, the chief executive of BAE Systems revealed yesterday.
Ian King told an influential committee of MPs that his company remained focused on producing two ships.
However, he added: “We have been asked to look at a number of options, recently asked over the last week or so… I think they range from having one carrier to no carriers but with an equivalent other programme.” He did not elaborate on what such a programme would entail.
The £5.2 billion contract to build two carriers is providing work for 10,000 employees at six construction sites around the country. Clauses within the contract mean that it would be almost as expensive to scrap as to maintain but, in the long term, cancellation would save on maintenance or the cost of fitting them with a new fleet of jets.
Raymond Duguid, a union member at the dockyard in Rosyth, near Edinburgh, where the two carriers are due to be assembled, said that any reduction in the project would be a blow for the workforce. “The carriers are just one job but they do give stability to the yard,” he told The Times.
Critics argue that the carriers are a waste of money at a time when the MoD’s over-spent budget should focus more on soldiers and smaller ships.
The Times revealed last week that Britain and France are preparing to announce a deal to share aircraft carrier capabilities as part of a wider plan to co-operate on defence. Such a move would enable both countries, the largest military powers in Europe, to maximise their strength at a lower cost. Requiring three times more steel than Wembley Stadium, the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers will each have a crew of 679, (1,600 if air staff are included) and should last 50 years.
MPs on the Defence Select Committe also heard from the head of ADS Group, a trade organisation representing Britain’s aerospace, defence and security industries.
Rear Admiral Rees Ward said he feared that the Strategic Defence and Security Review, to determine Britain’s military and diplomatic role, could be at odds with the Government’s spending review, putting 300,000 jobs at risk.”

The up front costs of the Air Group could still kill the Carriers. Kill the Carriers and RAF will not get STOVL F35B in any case. They have to have a cheaper option for the QE’s Air Group that F35B.